Trump’s SCOTUS pick is announced
And it’s Neil Gorsuch.
“I am a man of my word” says Trump.
Here’s what the WaPo had to say about Goresuch three days ago:
Indeed, Gorsuch, now 49, seems naturally equipped for his spot on President Trump’s shortlist of potential Supreme Court nominees.
There is a family connection to Republican establishment politics and service in the administration of George W. Bush. There is a glittery Ivy League résumé ”” Columbia undergrad, Harvard Law ”” along with a Marshall scholarship to Oxford. There is a partnership at one of Washington’s top litigation law firms and a string of successful cases.
There is a Supreme Court clerkship; Gorsuch was hired by Justice Byron White, a fellow Colorado native, who shared him with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy…
… [T]hose who know Gorsuch and have studied his decade of solidly conservative opinions on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit say he more resembles the man he would replace ”” the late Justice Antonin Scalia ”” than the more moderate Kennedy.
Like Scalia, Gorsuch is a proponent of originalism ”” meaning that judges should attempt to interpret the words of the Constitution as they were understood at the time they were written ”” and a textualist who considers only the words of the law being reviewed, not legislators’ intent or the consequences of the decision.
Critics say that those neutral considerations seem to always lead Gorsuch to conservative outcomes, a criticism that was also leveled at Scalia…
Kagan is among many who have praised Gorsuch’s lucid and occasionally lyrical writing style.
But those who know him say he lacks Scalia’s combustible, combative style.
“He has very strong opinions, but he just treats people well in every context,” said Melissa Hart, a University of Colorado law professor. She is a Democrat who clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired in 2010.
At 49, Gorsuch could have a long tenure.
Good appointment, I think. It will be hard for the Democrats to make any case against this pick unless it’s a completely political one: that they don’t like his conservatism.
[ADDENDUM: Gorsuch graduated from Harvard Law School in the same class as Obama.]
neo concludes, “It will be hard for the Democrats to make any case against this pick unless it’s a completely political one: that they don’t like his conservatism.”
The Democrats will not and do not like his conservatism (money-back guarantee), and their case will be a completely political one — isn’t virtually everything nowadays?
I like him because he is NOT from New York! No offense to New Yorkers; but, it is time for some diversity.
charles:
But he went to Columbia and Harvard Law. Kind of like an ex-president of ours.
I didn’t pay a great deal of attention to politics in the early 1980’s but I do remember his mother, Anne, first female head of the EPA. Maybe the reason I remember her is because of the convulsions she caused the liberals who ended up hounding her out of office. We’ll probably hear more about her in the coming days (even though she is dead).
Over at Instapundit, Professor Reynolds quoted the President in pointing out that Gorsuch was confirmed unanimously for his slot at the 10th Circuit. I cannot imagine President Trump not confronting anyone still around from those hearings who changes their vote.
This could be a fun confirmation hearing.
Steve S:
i don’t think the word means what you think it means. 🙂 It will be interesting, will the nuclear option be used?
25 Democrat Senate seats are up for grabs in the 2018 elections. Trump won 40 percent of those states, 20 percent by double digits. If there was a Republican party that represented Trump voters, it would be calling for its members in those states to get on the phone to their Democrat Senators and tell them they’ll be looking for another job in two years if they don’t get in line.
One should expect ALL of Trump’s USSC justice nominees to have this ‘flavor.’
Hard to stop// block.
Pence approved.
Interesting obit on his mother, which includes this:
OM:
President Trump has demonstrated a pithy knack for painting his opposition in colors they’d not known existed. The President making a point to mention the lack of opposition to Gorsuch’s earlier confirmation is a manner of notifying potential opposition that they will find themselves in his cross-hairs. By that, I’m currently betting against the need for the nuclear option – at least this time around.
No Senate Democrat will dare vote for Gorsuch or any of the other twenty names on Trump’s list of last year. The “nuclear option”, initiated by the hated Harry Reid for all Federal judge nominees except the Supremes, will need to now come into play. As it should. A simple majority vote suffices, especially when the prior Democratic majority exercised it and now pouts that it might be done unto them.
If the Senate GOP majority is going to rule, let us see it do so.
John McCain’s statement posted on the ScotusBlog website was listed in the “supports” column.
The link to White is good. I’ve got a biography on him – The Man Who Once Was Whizzer White. It’s been a while since I read the biography, but my recollection is that he was fairly well grounded, and not prone to taking flights of fancy when it was time to issue opinions.
Jesuit education at Georgetown Prep. Good man.
Another Ivy League graduate? Geez.
Weicome to civil war 2.0. The Ds in DC (and any deep blue county) and the BLM pussy hat wacko tribe are not going to back down. Sadly, the ‘nuclear option’ for SCOTUS appointments must be detonated. The dems will invoke it as soon as there is another dem in the oval office.
They, will never fear to go nuke if they have a majority in the senate and in the oval office. Tthe ‘progressives’ are immune to shame. They muste be banished from polite socety.
parker:
This is indeed our best chance since WWII to banish them.
Strangely, we have ended up with the most combative man for the job, though Cruz could have done it also.
I was plenty critical of Trump during the campaign and he’s been ruling unilaterally by EO the last twelve days or so, so I’m not encouraged (we hated it when Obama did that, right?)
But I also didn’t think he would be satisfactory in his SCOTUS pick(s) and said so. Pleasantly surprised there – I’m pretty happy with what I’ve heard so far about this pick and have to give credit where credit is do.
Looks like a good SCOTUS nominee!
I watched a little of Nancy Pelosi’s town hall on CNN following the announcement of Neil Gorsuch’s nomination. That woman looks delusional, sounds delusional, and I’d have to conclude is delusional. While the House will not be voting on Gorsuch’s nomination, it is clear Pelosi will be a standard bearer in opposition to him.
The level of vitriol being generated up in D.C. is very troubling. And someone with credentials as impeccable as Gorsuch brings it out, I don’t anticipate it diminishing in the next four years. Reminiscent of Orwell’s two-minute hate. Is there any unifying figure on the horizon for either party? Or are we destined to be constantly tearing ourselves apart in D.C.? I weep for the USA.
Is there any unifying figure on the horizon for either party? Or are we destined to be constantly tearing ourselves apart in D.C.? I weep for the USA.
F: I share your dismay.
I don’t believe life is an inevitable race to the bottom, but it can be, and for now it is in the US. Trump is not the solution to that problem.
Although if Trump managed to get the economy humming with 5% growth rate such that the middle class shared the prosperity, I think that could go some ways to easing the polarization.
However, I doubt widespread prosperity is in the cards.
I suspect there is a belief in some Republican quarters that using the “nuclear option” is too extreme or at the very least a little unsporting. If so, this would be a grave error in my opinion. I don’t believe for one moment that the party that already exercised the prior nuclear option would have any qualms at all about extending it to SCOTUS appointments if and when they regained a Senate majority.
Seems like an excellent pick, and I love how Trump rolled out the announcement. His media savvy is paying off.
neo concludes, “It will be hard for the Democrats to make any case against this pick unless it’s a completely political one: that they don’t like his conservatism.”
nope.. they are using the feminsits…
their warriors that will make a communist state
ha… told you
They are going to gin up the reversal of roeVwade!!!
[that kind of thing is in the media matters work document by the man who created media matters and lays out what will happen. its a program that will detail what you guys try to make up and imagine from watching the outside!!! ]
remember the chatechism of the revolutionary in the section of capital and its uses and what it said about using women to make a communist state? (which is why they took over the movement)
they are going to use women, who are trained now to think a certain way, to panic and fight fight fifhgt for rights… you know, rights like a home, free tampons, and roe v wade and if you let the non communists have an inch you will be barefoot and babies all over again..
Rolling Stone: Gorsuch might vote to overturn Roe v. Wade (though that’s not certain / Affirmative action in limited form will still be safe, as will LGBT rights
they preloaded this with
Will America Lose ‘Roe v. Wade’ Under Trump? – Rolling Stone
TMZ: Judge Neil Gorsuch Trump’s Supreme Court Pick Anti-Abortion Leanings
[anti abortion leanings was HUGE type]
wrote a book called “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia” [when sanger and ernst rudin of holocaust fame did it, it was ok, but now he writes a book, you cant tell what position he takes from the article, but its thrown in there]
the term for this is called “kitchen sinking”
Judge Gorsuch also wrote an opinion siding with religious organizations that didn’t want to provide contraception under Obamacare
The 49-year-old judge has criticized the use of courtroom as a place to change social policy, calling it “bad for the country and bad for the judiciary.”
in all these articles they dont mention the word conservative. they mention right wing, whch goes back to stalin and hitler!!! they are avoiding the conservative point so that you dont read about what they really stand for.
that overarching theory is avoided like the plague so that all your goin go thear is what the right winnger fascist will do to set women back… your not going to hear consrvative ideas as to how to go forward and why, that might lead to women thinking and not jumping on the liberal bandwagon to fight fight fight
Roe V. Wade: How Trump’s Appointment Of A Supreme Court Justice Might Affect Abortion Rights – WBAL
Trump is wrong on abortion and Roe v. Wade: USA Today
Roe v. Wade: How Trump’s Appointment of a Supreme Court Justice… ABC news
Could Trump overturn Supreme Court abortion case Roe v. Wade – Busness Insider
Roe v. Wade Attorney: Trump Is Biggest Threat Yet to Reproductive rights – NBC
still no mention of conservative. just fear mongering women… but thats how you control women, with fear… (think hard on this before you snap back. its why victimology is strong in these and why everything for them is hurry, if you dont, your goign go lose… same way you sell them things.. quick, buy, if yo udont on sale, you will lose… fear fear fear). its also why their methods dont build confidence, what does a confident self actualized woman need with feminism?
i like this one:
Trump: I’ll appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade CNBC
Hillary Clinton said, “I strongly support Roe v. Wade.”
“I will defend Roe v. Wade, I will defend a woman’s right to make her own decision,” Clinton said. [cause who cares if the man has no say and has to work till the kid is 26 to pay, regardless of what she does, and regardless that she has 23 forms of birth control and she gets a lot of that for FREE.. its always the penis fault, which is very appealing to women]
when you read the article you will find that this heading is a paraphrase of a conclusion and that henever said that. what he DID Say was that it may be overturned because of what judges do, and if so it would become the purview of the states, not ended. (i paraprased his debate answer)
Could a Trump Administration Overturn Roe v. Wade? -nymag
and the source of the twisting lying:
Trump Says He Wants Roe v. Wade Overturned, Mainstream Media -MEDIA MATTERS
Trump Doesn’t Get Roe v. Wade – NYTimes.com
here is another twisting the same way the other news site did of his answer, and a bit different each time
Trump vows that he will overturn Roe v. Wade “automatically.” new republic
How Trump’s Supreme Court nominee will try to fool the country on Roe V Wade – Washington Times
Roe v. Wade could be in jeopardy under Donald Trump – CBS News
Donald Trump: Women Will ‘Have To Go To Another State’ For Abortions If Roe v. Wade Is Reversed – huffington post
Trump eyes the end of the Roe v. Wade era | MSNBC
they started this following media matters plan that was put out after the election.
see a pattern here?
they want women to fight for them
they dont want to debate, they want fear
they want RED TERROR of any stripe
because FEAR is how they rule, and how they guide, and how they move people like cattle
global warming will end the world
drugs will fry your brain
drugs are good and the police will get you
rich people will take what you have
women will lose rights
if you dont act now, the end of the universe/world/nation/ home town/ reality will all cease to exist
see a pattern?
there is no fear of conservativism
so they wont push that
losing something garners fear
so they will couch most things in losing something
how do feminists rule fear and shaming
think maybe its real vs white feather
and they are the army of the revolutionary going back to nechyeve and his chatechism.
I think both parties are weighing their options WRT to the nuclear option. Gorsuch is an excellent nominee for Democrats and Republicans to figure their strategy, since he is about as good as Democrats can expect from Trump and he doesn’t tip the court balance.
Personally I have no problem with the nuclear option. However, I think it’s preferable to hold off until it’s absolutely necessary.
Democrats need to decide whether Gorsuch is the hill they want to die on, so to speak. I think they would be better off saving their ammunition for the next Trump nominee, but the hysteria we are seeing top to bottom among Democrats may preclude strategic considerations.
I am happy with this nomination and hope it goes through. SCOTUS appointments were the only reason I crossed my fingers and reluctantly voted for Trump.
Seems like a good pick – but haven’t looked particularly closely at him.
As for the “nuclear option”. Won’t be needed.
The dems probably fear this the most, and would want to avoid it.
Besides, they won’t be able to change the overall outcome.
trump provided a list long ago, so none of those should be a surprise to the dems.
It also leaves trump with several more choices to offer, if this one is rejected.
BUT, a lot depends on how trump deftly plays this.
http://www.filedropper.com/337535680-full-david-brock-confidential-memo-on-fighting-trump
LOOL AT THE LINK:
David Brock (born November 2, 1962) is an American political operative, author, and commentator who founded the liberal media watchdog group Media Matters for America. He has been described by Time magazine as “one of the most influential operatives in the Democratic Party.”
and for things like muslim ban, its a ban, and all that, which was not said, and not done, and put in, or twisted, and such. media matters will set it straight – it will tell you it was a ban for religion, and anything that will work. the point is to harangue him endlessly.
here are the organizations to watch for who will set things
Media Matters, American Bridge, Crew, Shareblue
Neo Artfldgr:
Actually, Brock is of a certain subgroup that’s not exactly a changer, he’s what Churchill might call a re-ratter. That is, a double changer. First a liberal, then a stint as a conservative
Brock started as a conservative from a conservative family
but wealth has them turn around to be the leaders of the world post socialism to preserve that status and such they obtained – he just sides with whatever side he thinks will win…
when it looked like conservatives had it, he was there
when the ball changed, he changed
if it was germany, he would be wa weimar man
until hitler was moving forward and then a party man
after, he would deny being a part of anything, it was just self serving
Brock began his career as a right-wing investigative reporter during the 1990s / He wrote the book The Real Anita Hill and the Troopergate story, which led to Paula Jones filing a lawsuit against Bill Clinton. / In the late 1990s he switched sides, aligning himself with the Democratic Party, and in particular with Bill and Hillary Clinton.
he has the finger print of someone who decied to switch sides to avoid being crushed… he is akin to the man who wrote helter skelter trying to free manson… he knew exactly what the clintons did and up close and he changed sides to be with them?
In 2004, he founded Media Matters for America, a non-profit organization that describes itself as a “progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.”
He has since also founded super PACs called American Bridge 21st Century and Correct the Record, has become a board member of the super PAC Priorities USA Action, and has been elected chairman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
The Nation has described Brock as a “conservative journalistic assassin turned progressive empire-builder”
lets see how long it takes for the press to pick up on the leak and if they will report on their modern willi munsenberger – Broc!!! so far its been a couple of weeks and NOTHING.
Willi Mé¼nzenberg
In 1924, Mé¼nzenberg was elected to the Reichstag and served as a member until the banning of the KPD in 1933. Mé¼nzenberg was one of the few KPD leaders of working-class origin, a fact that was a source of immense pride for Mé¼nzenberg. [because world wide its wealthy people pushing an ideology on idiots that claims will take away the resources money and power of the people behind that movement that say that!!!]
on Amazon
The Red Millionaire: A Political Biography of Willy Mé¼nzenberg, Moscow’s Secret Propaganda Tsar in the West, 1917-1940
EVERYONE nows the nazy propaganda minsiter was not willi
but it was willi that did it all for them and is unklnown
because he then did it for the soviets and the progressives in the USA / and he is who you can say is the person broc is most alike
to read about him and his life and what he did is to find a whole world of history that you never knew existed and explains a lot about today. the REAL makers are invisable… in front was Wilson and FDR, bheind was stuart chase, willi, and others
its as if they erased a whole section of a library and no one noticed.
@Llwddythlw – every two years we see an election that could rebalance the Senate.
Of course the GOP majority can change the rules and take away the dems ability to fillibuster.
Just remember, that there will be a day when the dems have majority in the Senate.
Then what?
.
Sen Manchin was on tv blaming reid for this mess for the dems, by his abolishment of fillibustering on lower court appointments.
He believes there could be “discussions” with the WH on this appointment, and would like to be invited.
At least one dem who seems to have his head about him.
Artfldgr:
I read Brock’s book (memoir) years ago. He went to college as a liberal and had a “change” experience there to conservatism. When I read the book I decided his change to conservatism was very shallow, however. It didn’t surprise me that he had switched back to liberalism. He seemed a very odd guy, very opportunistic, very shallow thinker, and this was in ALL of his political guises, left or right.
When I say he’s a double changer (re-ratter), I’m not talking about the start of his fame. When he began famous, he self-defined as a conservative. As I said, I read his entire book (Blinded by the Right). But his fame was not the beginning of his political life as a young adult. As a young adult, he went to college (as I said) as a liberal. He describes his change experience in the book.
IF YOU DONT KNOW WHERE YOU HAVE BEEN HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT DIRECTION YOUR GOING IN?
he is the father of all you guys talk about and dont even know it
we discuss revisioned history, and dont know its revisioned
we discuss history you know is being revisioned in front of you
He is the man that taught thenm ALL how to do it. We cant understand what is going on today without a thorough knowlege of these people who for most are erased and dont exist and have no explanations (they control the history you think you know).
So they try to undersand and make them up, they have no virgil to guide them through hell, and if they did, they would ignore that anyway
[in order to get along with contemporaries i actually have about 5 different histories memorized so that each group doesnt get upset that i have the “wrong facts” – and NONE of them will read the histories that contain the real information because the different histories are more liked as they are tuned to each – and to them all are wrong except theirs – and they dont have 5 or more hsitorries to read over to know]
In 1924 he launched Arbeiter-Illustrierte-Zeitung, which became the most widely read socialist pictorial newspaper in Germany [like Media Matters is today coordinating similar] Mé¼nzenberg worked closely with the Comintern and the Soviet secret police (known as the Cheka in 1917—22 and as the OGPU in 1922—34) to advance the communist cause internationally. [as broc works with Soros]
In order to broaden the Comintern’s influence, Mé¼nzenberg created numerous front organizations he termed “Innocents’ Clubs”
Today they became the liberals we discuss.
[ex soviets and ex left above the usful idiot level know him well. you can tell because they do things like him hint at it laughing at the rubes that dont know, and ignoreing them becasue anyone with an opinnion that doesnt know this stuff, is not to be listened to. they are regarded like children giving solutions to adults without knowing what the real issue are and such]
the useful idiots, and more, and the fronts are things like feminism, racialism, and all the bugaboos you could find to organize and self hate no matter where these people live!!! the army of the born malcontented and the induced malcontented, a free army.
These front groups, such the Friends of Soviet Russia, the World League Against Imperialism, and the International Worker’s Relief Fund, were superficially devoted to an undeniably benign cause such as famine relief, anti-imperialism, or peace, but Mé¼nzenberg created them to enlist the support of liberals and moderate socialists in defending the Bolshevik revolution
FREE BOOK – Libertarian Alliance : For Life, Liberty, and Property
THE BIG LIE OR MANY SMALLER LIES? THE CAREER AND IMPACT OF COMMUNIST PROPAGANDIST WILLI MéœNZENBERG
Dr Helen Szamuely
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/histn/histn049.pdf
Creating False History
if you dig into the archives an know history as connected things not disjointed facts you would now know that hitler did NOT order the reichstag… the communsits did, and the winners rewrote that history… but if you told people the real history and you have proof and everything is there to look up, they would not listen so why bother?
The truth is that van der Lubbe did act on his own. This has been investigated and proved by a number of historians. No evidence has been found of anybody else’s involvement. Further, Hitler did take advan-tage of the fire to do what he had always planned to do and destroy the remnants of German democratic parliament and ban the Communist Party of which the Nazis were oddly afraid. All of that is true.
so if you hear someone say that hitler burned down the reichstag
thats wrong.. he didnt..
but who would care to know the DETAILS?
Everyone, but everyone, quotes Dr Gé¶bbels’s comment about the big lie and compares every would-be spin doctor with him.
But who actually believed Gé¶bbels?
As opposed to that, millions of people across the world repeat certain “truths” for which there is “full agreement” without once realizing that it is propaganda first started by that genius of spin doctoring and promoter of the Comintern, Willi Mé¼nzenberg, without even knowing his name or comparing any tuppenny-ha’penny press officer to him. Now that is propaganda. Sheer genius. Achieved by a long list of small and medium-sized lies.
if that last part dont get deleted, arent you curious to know what is what?
wouldnt you want to know if someting you thought was real is not?
if not, then dont complain about lies dominating, fake news etc. its not a problem
Bill:
President Trump is not “ruling unilaterally” by the issuance of Executive Orders. Most especially at the beginning of a new administration, a President uses Executive Orders to direct the vast number of administrative agencies which are lawfully under his command. The use of Executive Orders as a substitute for getting Congress to pass legislation desired by the President is unconstitutional. Obama did this repeatedly.
Big Maq: I believe the a future Dem led senate would extend the nuclear option to SCOTUS in a heartbeat if they did not have a supermajority and the Republicans made it clear they would filibuster their candidate(s). If you agree with that, then exercise of the nuclear option is rational. I can’t see that there’s any value in waiting, and I believe the GOP should exercise the option if the Dems are going to use the filibuster. Whether they will or not is beyond my knowledge.
I’m speculating, but perhaps the only reason that Harry Reid did not do it in the first place was that his attention was on the lower courts, and he didn’t predict (i) the senate majority shifting to the GOP and then (ii) a SCOTUS vacancy occurring during Obama’s term. In fairness to Reid, even an intellect as capacious as his, couldn’t be expected to make such a prediction.
The recent evolution by the far left to relying on outright fantasy to form their collective opinion makes them literally impossible and dangerous to deal with. It’s never really been possible to get anyone, including lefties, to accept a basic fact that contradicts a closely held opinion, but at this point, the far left simply makes up an outrageous fantasy and proceeds from there as if it were true. The fact that it is ridiculous, to say nothing of being not true, not only does not stop them or dissuade them, it doesn’t even protect the person or group that they’re projecting it on. It’s actually frightening. I was born into a nation of laws and now in middle life, I live in a nation in which half the population acts like because they say something, it makes it true and because they believe something about something that isn’t even real to begin with, it makes how they feel about it right.
Particularly since the Trump election, we have seen the entire left simply inventing complete fiction about everything, and there’s thunderous approval across the rank and file of the far left set not of a real objection to what is real, but to a literal fantasy. It’s a group hallucination of a bunch of people who think they are standing up to Hitler in 1933, and they have given themselves the moral authority to do anything necessary to accomplish their mission.
Until they come down from their bad trip, I honestly am at a loss as to what, if anything, can be done but people are going to get hurt if it doesn’t stop soon.
“Big Maq: I believe the a future Dem led senate would extend the nuclear option to SCOTUS in a heartbeat if they did not have a supermajority” – Llwddythlw
Yet, they didn’t go all that way, when they could have.
Who knows? It is all speculation.
Your argument is very much like the argument some of the dems made when taking that first step. Each side blames the other to justify their own escalation…
http://neoneocon.com/2017/01/31/more-on-thought-and-action-and-trump-of-course/#comment-2170115
Now, as mentioned elsewhere, go forward two, four, six, eight years… You think that will still work out in “our” favor, if the dems have a majority?
What would be the next maneuver they can justify because the GOP would have done this?
We haven’t even established it is “necessary” to get what we want.
Without something specific disqualifying Gosuch it is hard for dems to justify. If all it is is disagreement on policy, then not one on trump’s list would pass their standard.
With three more possible SCOTUS seats in the next four years, I’d want the ability to fillibuster, if I were the dems.
Big Maq:
Why didn’t the Democrats go all the way when they could have? I will speculate, but I think the answer is crystal clear even though we cannot know for sure.
Consider the situation. They were in charge of the Senate and they had the presidency. There was no need to use the nuclear option for SCOTUS because there was no SCOTUS opening in November of 2013, and they didn’t see one coming.
But, what about when there was an opening? When Scalia died? Simple: they no longer had control of the Senate. I have virtually no doubt that had they had control of the Senate they would absolutely have extended the nuclear option to SCOTUS. They didn’t do it because they couldn’t do it by the time they would have wanted to do it.
And the GOP in the Senate will only invoke it for SCOTUS if they feel the need—that is, if the Democrats have the votes and the will to successfully block Gorsuch.
Furthermore before the election Reid made it clear Democrats would nuke the SCOTUS filibuster under Hillary if Republicans resisted her nominees.
Outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said he is confident that he has laid the groundwork for Democrats to nuke the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees if they win back the Senate in November.
Envisioning Hillary Clinton in the White House and Democrats controlling the Senate, Reid warned that if a Senate Republican minority block her Supreme Court nominee, he is confident the party won’t hesitate to change the filibuster rules again.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/harry-reid-if-gop-blocks-scotus-in-2017-dems-should-go-nuclear-again
As far as I’m concerned, Republicans should feel little compunction finishing the nuclear option if they find it necessary.
Mike Pence was on Rush today. He said that President Trump “has set his face like flint against the wind.”
I’m noways tired of all this winning. 🙂
Well, might help to understand that even before Reid in 2013, Cheney floated the idea of ending the fillibuster in 2005.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/apr/22/20050422-114701-8401r/
And before we justify Cheney’s intentions by blaming the dems for “abusing” the fillibuster, it sure looks like the GOP were escalating the use of fillibusters for some decades…
https://i.imgur.com/pDgxItZ.png – from the Atlantic
No doubt, if we research it thoroughly enough we might find other dem or GOP leaders voicing the desire to “go nuclear” prior to 2005.
Of course, all along, the dems did their share of escalation too.
.
Still, notice the huge increase in fillibusters in 2008? Who was behind that?
Setting aside the rationale for each instance, when faced with that volume, it is a wonder that Reid didn’t just extend the “nuclear option” to everything. He technically could just as easily gone all the way, but stopped. Not sure he’d have taken much more of a political hit than he did on what he moved forward on.
It seems he had been using the threat of “going nuclear” as a tool to minimize the GOP fillibusters, but given the escalation, he pulled the trigger.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/why-harry-reid-went-nuclear/281728/
http://www.businessinsider.com/nuclear-option-filibuster-harry-reid-senate-rules-mitch-mcconnell-2013-7
Was the SCOTUS option left on the table as another negotiating tool? He did have 52 votes for what he did. Could it be that he couldn’t muster enough votes to go that far? Who knows for certain?
With this history in mind, Reid’s talk, pre election, is just a continuation of threats each side has been using. It carries teeth because he did use it before and followed through. But, the GOP are no angels wrt this kind of threat.
.
So, yes, escalation. That works out for everyone.
Each side wants to get their way, looking for a shortcut, without having to work through the deliberative process.
We have to save the Republic by changing the rules to make it easier to get our way.
EO’s here. Nuclear option there.
Only, what pyrrich win that may all turn out to be, the next time the dems get a bicameral majority and POTUS, who then take where we left off and make it even easier to reverse everything.
The way things are going, it may not be that far away. The dems thought destiny was theirs, and overplayed their hand. Now, similarly, trump and his followers think they have a “mandate”, and seem inclined to overplay their own hand.
Meanwhile, despite all this, nobody is dramatically reducing the size and scope of government – the real issue.
We’ll see.
Big Maq: To be sure there is plenty of blame to go around and this stuff goes back a while.
One problem is that the two parties do have areas of serious incompatibility. It’s hard to find a satisfactory compromise between raising taxes and reducing them, going to war or not going to war.
Another problem is that the Democrats’ idea of status quo seems to be the US steadily moving a degree or two to the left each year and it’s a terrible problem, unAmerican even, if Republicans get in the way.
Republicans, or conservatives anyway, oppose that drift. As WF Buckley wrote of his magazine, “National Review”:
It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so…
Democrats act as though Republicans want to take the country back to 1920, if not 1850. But there would have been no Tea Party had the US government, taxes and regulations remained what they had been in 1996 — the middle of the Clinton administration.
Meanwhile, despite all this, nobody is dramatically reducing the size and scope of government — the real issue.
Big Maq: Agreed. Even under Reagan the government grew — but at least Reagan was trying and he did reduce the rate of expansion.
I love Trump’s “2 for 1” rollback on federal regulations. I’m skeptical it will work because it’s a rule that will be easy to game. For instance, “OK, we’ll give up two regulations on buggy whip manufacture but H20 is a pollutant falling under EPA pollution requirements.”
@huxley – thanks!
Ultimately, in our form of democracy, political disagreement in our legislative chambers, more or less, reflects the disagreement in the populace.
We could argue if the design of the deliberative process itself favors gravitation towards a leftward movement.
But, we cannot disagree that relying on EO’s and similar, or on “nuclear options”, erodes the check and balance mechanisms toward centralizing more power.
In the end, would trump and the GOP close the door after using it, or leave it open for the dems (or worse) to abuse it?
.
Aside from the folly of escalation of central powers, it is hard to deny that the way trump is going about fulfilling his “promises” is playing largely to his base, driving down support rather than building it.
If nobody really tries to build broad support, it is rather disingenuous to come down on the opposition for taking action that slows down or blocks legislative processes.
So, best just to label it for what it is, a naked power play, and not hide behind blaming of the other elected officials.
When obama played the blame game we certainly hated it.
.
Building support also applies to overseas relations as well, not just the electorate. There, trump’s actions seem designed to alienate even those who might be sympathetic.
Take his call with the Australian PM. Would like to know how the Russian call went on that same day, as it seems it was a fair bit more friendly in comparison. Seems upside down, dismissive of the basis for being allies.
Maybe trump was surprised about the obama deal wrt refugees. Yes, he should be bothered by it, but should he have been surprised by it? Was his team not prepared? Was his response to the PM even appropriate?
It is far easier to get “tough” with one’s friends, but far harder to deal with foes. This can easily be seen as bullying vs being a fair broker / friend / ally.
.
If I were leading Russia, I’d be laughing and very pleased right now, and be looking for how to exploit the new leeway I have in the fog this all creates for the US and the west.
.
As I wrote about “nobody dramatically reducing government”, yes, knew about the 2 for 1 deal. A step in the right direction, but tons of questions on how this is implemented. Might be gamed in practice so as not to be very meaningful. Might not be much different than is in their power to do today. Remains to be seen just what gets done with it. Hopefully, some good.
(Would much prefer a blanket sunset clause on legislation that makes laws subject to a new vote at a future date, and a prioritization of existing legislation for establishing sunset dates for them. Laws that were most useful would survive while others die rather than live on indefinitely through legacy momentum)
Also, trump’s recent actions and rhetoric seem to favor more government oversight, just in different areas (aside from his mixed message during the campaign).
His cabinet picks have some promise in this way.
So, mixed bag, until we see what really happens.
The rest of his first 100 days should be something of a firmer indicator.
Big Maq: Things move in cycles. If escalation only led to more escalation, we would have nuked ourselves into some horrible dark age by now.
With time and events I believe we will see a shift to more moderate appeals for broader support. On paper that’s what Obama said he was going to do and instead he gave us much more polarization in pursuit of power. That’s a big reason we got Trump.
@huxley – obama wasn’t alone in creating the polarization.
The narrative and tenor in conservative media has been rather “hot” since 2008 (and, arguably, well before then). Things that are absolutely okay for trump to promote, would garner cries of “RINO!!!” only a year or so ago.
True, escalation doesn’t always continue. However, it takes someone(s) who is/are willing to do a reset. trump seems extremely unlikely to be one to do that.
That said, I hope you are right about this time.
This is a great opportunity, but…
We’ll see.
@huxley — obama wasn’t alone in creating the polarization.
As far as I’m concerned, Obama drove that polarization by his bait-and-switch tactics pretending he was a centrist, moderate, pragmatic, unifying figure when he was just a common garden-variety hard-left community organizer with some Ivy League credentials.
Once upon a time I was a (very) minor leftist community organizer. I knew that guy. I knew how that works. When I saw Bill Ayers’s and Rev. Wright’s name next to Obama’s I knew what we were in for.
@huxley – when I look back, in context of what happened in 2015 / 2016, obama was not alone.
No doubt, obama does get plenty of blame, but we’ve seen “conservative” media, and many in the GOP dramatically change their tune in the 2015 / 2016 campaign season.
Much of what these people had said they stood for, for years, really didn’t seem to matter. What once elicited “RINO!!!” recriminations were now a-okay.
Reflecting on the increasing rancor intoned from 2008 on, seems that they helped inflame the division rather than help build a constructive way forward.
Is it all an alt-r strategy, to parallel the Ayers or Wrights machinations “that work” on the left? IDK
Intentionally or not, the “conservative” media and their GOP enablers / opportunists essentially laid the ground work to make a man like trump acceptable.
Big Maq:
“trump seems extremely unlikely…”
Just curious – what’s with the refusal to capitalize Trump, even at the beginning of a sentence? Your postings make it clear that you know where the shift key is located.
Stuff like that just contributes to scrollover after a while, like the ‘Trum’ guy.
Big Maq,
I no sooner post than I see you don’t capitalize Obama, either. Now I’m really intrigued!